Please wait

Silent Calls Victim - Homeserve

Create new list

Share this list with friends and colleagues

You can give out this address:

http://clippings.ft.com/lists/scvhomeserve
Copy to clipboard
Done

Post this list to social networks

Share this list by email

Send this list to friends and colleagues; they will be emailed the top five items and a link to the list.

(Optional)

Separate multiple email addresses by commas or line breaks.

Upload a recipient list
Please type the two words shown to help us prevent abuse of this facility.
Please wait

Your email has been sent. Reset form.

Receive updates using RSS

Subscribe to this list in your feed reader:

http://clippings.ft.com/lists/scvhomeserve/feed
Copy to clipboard
Done

Receive updates by email

Please log into your FT account at the top right to subscribe to list updates via email.
Clippings from the FT covering the case of Homeserve automated marketing messages.
Select "Standard View" to see Summary
Please waitOne result
  • Homeserve to probe phone campaign

    Homeserve to probe phone campaign

    The domestic repairs group launches an audit of one of its outsourced marketing providers, which has bombarded Thames re

    Notes: This article, available in full only to FT.com subscribers, describes an investigation that Homeserve is conducting into the activities of a marketing provider. It is alleged that this company has left aggressive marketing messages on answering machines. The messages are suggested to reflect and refer to the Ofcom requirement to leave an Informative Message, including the number for a return call, in the event of an "abandoned call". Ofcom is reported as commenting that callers are expected to know whether a call is answered by an individual or a machine and should only apply its rules covering "silent calls" in the former case. Ofcom suggests that leaving messages on answering machines could be treated as "persistent misuse". The ICO is reported as commenting that there is no requirement to leave such messages under the terms of the PECR. There is no reference to a comment from the ICO about the fact that the message is a clear breach of PECR #19.

    Published on 4th Dec 2010. Clipped by silent.calls on 4th Dec 2010, last edited by silent.calls on 4th Dec 2010

Please waitOne result

Please wait...

Please wait

Send this item by email

(Optional)

Separate multiple email addresses by commas or line breaks.

Upload a recipient list
Please type the two words shown to help us prevent abuse of this facility.

Type the two words: Type what you hear:

Done Please wait
The FT is not responsible for the selection of content contained on any FT clippings list or for any notes written by users which are the sole responsibility of the FT Clippings user.

Highlights